Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending and being considered.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 11-16 and 18-20 have been amended.
Response to 112
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/13/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendments overcome previous 112, however the amendments invoke 112 on different limitation. See the 112 below.
Response to 103
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/13/2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument on page 9-10 of remarks. The applicant argues that the cited prior art Stephen fails to teach “the selected type of the component being deployed by the backup and restore application to protect the selected type of the data object” the examiner acknowledges applicant’s point of view but respectfully disagrees because Stephen on [0012-0014] teaches during operation the backup and restore application 135 may enable the software component to protect data in computer system.
Next, the applicant argues that Kropf fails to teach “executes the instance of the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack to create a backup copy of the selected type of the data object generated by the instance of the selected type of the application that executes on the application host” the examiner respectfully disagrees because Kropf on [col 26 line 61-67 and col 27 line 1-8] explicitly teaches periodically taking snapshots of the virtual machine which involve the capture in one or more data stores of data, instructions, files, data, status, and/or properties of the banking machine, such snapshots may serve as backups of the virtual machine in case a newly installed update to the software in the currently on-line virtual machine causes unexpected problems i.e., snapshot as backup caused by newly installed software component. See also on [ col 37 line 46-67] teaches processor 1404 may also be operative to store the updated firmware/software 1434 component and updated configuration data 1436 in a backup location 1416 (e.g., a back partition, and or backup files) of the client device. When there are problems with subsequent upgrades of the firmware/software component stored in the bootable firmware/software location 1408, activating the input device 1428 of the client device may be operative to cause the processor 1404 to replace the current bootable firmware/software component stored in the bootable firmware/software location 1408 (which may include corrupted or subsequently updated firmware/software components) with the backup firmware/software component 1444 (i.e., the first updated firmware/software component 1434). Similarly, the processor may also replace the current configuration data with the backup configuration data 1446 (i.e., the first updated configuration data 1436
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “downloading download the selected type of the component…..” should read as “downloading . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
A. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim recites “enable a selection of a type corresponding to a component, a data object, and an application, the selected type of the component being part of an application agent software stack from a backup and restore application, from displayed types of components of multiple application agent software stacks, the selected type of the component being deployed by the backup and restore application to protect the selected type of the data object generated by any instances of the selected type of the application running on an application host” the specification fails to disclose “a selection of a type corresponding to a component, a data object, and an application” the closest teaching can be found on [0037] which discloses “the framework can back up the unique configuration files of several different type of software components.”
B. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites “enable a selection of a type corresponding to a component, a data object, and an application, the selected type of the component being part of an application agent software stack from a backup and restore application, from displayed types of components of multiple application agent software stacks, the selected type of the component being deployed by the backup and restore application to protect the selected type of the data object generated by any instances of the selected type of the application running on an application host” First, the phrase “enable selection of a type corresponding to….” is unclear, it seems like selection is enabled for “a type”, second it’s unclear what is being selected i.e., “a type” that corresponds to a component, a data object and an application OR individual component, data object and/or an application is selected. If the selection corresponds to component, a data object and an application, then the limitation could simply read as “enable a selection ofthe selected type of the component being part of an application agent software stack from a backup and restore application, from displayed types of components of multiple application agent software stacks” it’s unclear whether the above bolded portion of the limitation is to be interpreted as a new independent limitation or it should be considered as part of previous limitation. Therefore, the limitation as whole is ambiguous as it fails to clarify the phrase “type corresponding to…..”, fails to clarify active steps on selecting component, a data object and application, and fails to clarify the whether the phrase “from displayed types of components” being tied to the selection of type corresponding to component….. as explained above.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also rejected due to inheriting deficiency from corresponding independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima (US 20020144257) in view of Kropf et al (hereinafter Kropf) (US 8490868) and further in view of (JP 2011524569) (hereinafter STEPHEN) i.e., attached English translation is used for examination.
Regarding claim 1 Matsushima teaches a system for selecting, authenticating, and installing individual components of agent software stacks, comprising: (Matsushima on [0008] teaches an image formation system capable of legitimately and efficiently acquiring and executing software);
one or more processors (Matsushima on [0033-0034] teaches CPU 11);
and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a plurality of instructions, which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: (Matsushima on [0033-0034] teaches CPU 11 executing instruction stored in memory);
enable a selection of a type corresponding to a component, a data object, and an application, the selected type of the component being part of an application agent software stack from a backup and restore application, from displayed types of components of multiple application agent software stacks, (Matsushima Fig 2 and associated text on [0036, 0125 and 0127] teaches displaying list of available software components available on a server 20 (i.e., backup and restore application in view of [0020] of instant application) and user selecting a desired software component to be downloaded to multifunctional machine 10);
download the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack from the backup and restore application (Matsushima Fig 2 and associated text on [0036-0037 and 0070-0082] teaches downloading the selected software component from the server);
separately request and download a digital certificate from one of a vendor of the backup and restore application or the backup and restore application subsequent to the downloading of the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack (Matsushima on [0106-0107] teaches the server attached encrypted certificate to the header of the authentication information. The multifunctional machine acquires the authentication information decrypts the attached certificate withs its public key and extracts the public key of the server from the certificate. See Fig 4 block S411-S412 and text on [0083 and 0105-0108] teaches performing authentication processing using certificate after downloading the software component);
and install an instance of the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack in an application host, which executes the instance of the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack to (Matsushima on [0075 and 0081] teaches performing authentication using the authentication information and executing (i.e., installing the software component) the downloaded software component. See on [0011] teaches a desired software component selected from a list of software components accumulated in a server displayed on a display section. Further, the selected software component and authentication information is acquired from the server. The acquired software component processed based on the acquired authentication information. Therefore, the software component can be executed or not executed based on the result of authentication. See on [0128] teaches restrict the operation of the software component acquired from a server whose authentication has failed).
Although Matsushima teaches downloading digital certificate containing public key and installing the software component based on authentication information, but fails to explicitly teach using the public key to authenticate the software component and the instance of the authenticated component of the application agent software stack to create a backup copy of data generated by an application that executes on the application host, however Kropf from analogous art teaches
use a public key from the downloaded digital certificate to authenticate the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack (Kropf on [col 38 line 24-30] teaches the newly received updated firmware/software component may include a digital certificate with a public key capable of authenticating the signature of the firmware/software component. Such a digital certificate included with the newly received updated firmware/software component may be validated using the public key integrated into the current firmware/software component or stored in a previously received digital certificate);
(Kropf on [col 26 line 61-67 and col 27 line 1-8] teaches periodically taking snapshots of the virtual machine which involve the capture in one or more data stores of data, instructions, files, data, status, and/or properties of the banking machine, such snapshots may serve as backups of the virtual machine in case a newly installed update to the software in the currently on-line virtual machine causes unexpected problems i.e., snapshot as backup caused by newly installed software component. See also on [ col 37 line 46-67] teaches processor 1404 may also be operative to store the updated firmware/software 1434 component and updated configuration data 1436 in a backup location 1416 (e.g., a back partition, and or backup files) of the client device. When there are problems with subsequent upgrades of the firmware/software component stored in the bootable firmware/software location 1408, activating the input device 1428 of the client device may be operative to cause the processor 1404 to replace the current bootable firmware/software component stored in the bootable firmware/software location 1408 (which may include corrupted or subsequently updated firmware/software components) with the backup firmware/software component 1444 (i.e., the first updated firmware/software component 1434). Similarly, the processor may also replace the current configuration data with the backup configuration data 1446 (i.e., the first updated configuration data 1436)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the teaching of Kropf into the teaching of Matsushima by authenticating the software component using public key included in the certificate and installing the software component to create backup copy of data generated by the software component. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable to validate authenticity of the software component using the digital certificate and replace the corrupted firmware/software component with the authenticated software component (Kropf on [col 1 line 50-65 and col 38 line 1-30]).
The combination fails to explicitly teach each component being deployed by the backup and restore application to protect data from instances of a corresponding application running on an application host, however STEPHEN from analogous art teaches
the selected type of the component being deployed by the backup and restore application to protect the selected type of the data object (STEPHEN on [0012-0014] teaches during operation the backup and restore application 135 may enable the software component to protect data in computer system).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the teaching of STEPHEN into the combined teaching of Matsushima and Kropf by enabling the software component to protect the data. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable to data protection using software component deployed by backup and restore application (STEPHEN on [0002-0004]).
Regarding claim 8 Matsushima teaches a computer-implemented method for selecting, authenticating, and installing individual application agents, the computer-implemented method comprising: (Matsushima on [0008] teaches a software acquisition method and a computer-readable recording medium);
enable a selection of a type corresponding to a component, a data object, and an application, the selected type of the component being part of an application agent software stack from a backup and restore application, from displayed types of components of multiple application agent software stacks, (Matsushima Fig 2 and associated text on [0036, 0125 and 0127] teaches displaying list of available software components available on a server 20 (i.e., backup and restore application in view of [0020] of instant application) and user selecting a desired software component to be downloaded to multifunctional machine 10);
downloading download the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack from the backup and restore application (Matsushima Fig 2 and associated text on [0036-0037 and 0070-0082] teaches downloading the selected software component from the server);
separately request and download a digital certificate from one of a vendor of the backup and restore application or the backup and restore application subsequent to the downloading of the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack (Matsushima on [0106-0107] teaches the server attached encrypted certificate to the header of the authentication information. The multifunctional machine acquires the authentication information decrypts the attached certificate withs its public key and extracts the public key of the server from the certificate. See Fig 4 block S411-S412 and text on [0083 and 0105-0108] teaches performing authentication processing using certificate after downloading the software component);
and install an instance of the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack in an application host, which executes the instance of the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack to (Matsushima on [0075 and 0081] teaches performing authentication using the authentication information and executing (i.e., installing the software component) the downloaded software component. See on [0011] teaches a desired software component selected from a list of software components accumulated in a server displayed on a display section. Further, the selected software component and authentication information is acquired from the server. The acquired software component processed based on the acquired authentication information. Therefore, the software component can be executed or not executed based on the result of authentication. See on [0128] teaches restrict the operation of the software component acquired from a server whose authentication has failed).
Although Matsushima teaches downloading digital certificate containing public key and installing the software component based on authentication information, but fails to explicitly teach using the public key to authenticate the software component and the instance of the authenticated component of the application agent software stack to create a backup copy of data generated by an application that executes on the application host, however Kropf from analogous art teaches
use a public key from the downloaded digital certificate to authenticate the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack (Kropf on [col 38 line 24-30] teaches the newly received updated firmware/software component may include a digital certificate with a public key capable of authenticating the signature of the firmware/software component. Such a digital certificate included with the newly received updated firmware/software component may be validated using the public key integrated into the current firmware/software component or stored in a previously received digital certificate);
(Kropf on [col 26 line 61-67 and col 27 line 1-8] teaches periodically taking snapshots of the virtual machine which involve the capture in one or more data stores of data, instructions, files, data, status, and/or properties of the banking machine, such snapshots may serve as backups of the virtual machine in case a newly installed update to the software in the currently on-line virtual machine causes unexpected problems i.e., snapshot as backup caused by newly installed software component. See also on [ col 37 line 46-67] teaches processor 1404 may also be operative to store the updated firmware/software 1434 component and updated configuration data 1436 in a backup location 1416 (e.g., a back partition, and or backup files) of the client device. When there are problems with subsequent upgrades of the firmware/software component stored in the bootable firmware/software location 1408, activating the input device 1428 of the client device may be operative to cause the processor 1404 to replace the current bootable firmware/software component stored in the bootable firmware/software location 1408 (which may include corrupted or subsequently updated firmware/software components) with the backup firmware/software component 1444 (i.e., the first updated firmware/software component 1434). Similarly, the processor may also replace the current configuration data with the backup configuration data 1446 (i.e., the first updated configuration data 1436)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the teaching of Kropf into the teaching of Matsushima by authenticating the software component using public key included in the certificate and installing the software component to create backup copy of data generated by the software component. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable to validate authenticity of the software component using the digital certificate and replace the corrupted firmware/software component with the authenticated software component (Kropf on [col 1 line 50-65 and col 38 line 1-30]).
The combination fails to explicitly teach each component being deployed by the backup and restore application to protect data from instances of a corresponding application running on an application host, however STEPHEN from analogous art teaches
the selected type of the component being deployed by the backup and restore application to protect the selected type of the data object (STEPHEN on [0012-0014] teaches during operation the backup and restore application 135 may enable the software component to protect data in computer system).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the teaching of STEPHEN into the combined teaching of Matsushima and Kropf by enabling the software component to protect the data. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable to data protection using software component deployed by backup and restore application (STEPHEN on [0002-0004]).
Regarding claim 15 Matsushima teaches a computer program product, comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a computer-readable program code embodied therein to be executed by one or more processors, the program code including instructions to: (Matsushima on [0008] teaches a software acquisition method and a computer-readable recording medium. See on [0033-0034] teaches CPU 11 executing instruction stored in memory);
enable a selection of a type corresponding to a component, a data object, and an application, the selected type of the component being part of an application agent software stack from a backup and restore application, from displayed types of components of multiple application agent software stacks, (Matsushima Fig 2 and associated text on [0036, 0125 and 0127] teaches displaying list of available software components available on a server 20 (i.e., backup and restore application in view of [0020] of instant application) and user selecting a desired software component to be downloaded to multifunctional machine 10);
downloading download the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack from the backup and restore application (Matsushima Fig 2 and associated text on [0036-0037 and 0070-0082] teaches downloading the selected software component from the server);
separately request and download a digital certificate from one of a vendor of the backup and restore application or the backup and restore application subsequent to the downloading of the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack (Matsushima on [0106-0107] teaches the server attached encrypted certificate to the header of the authentication information. The multifunctional machine acquires the authentication information decrypts the attached certificate withs its public key and extracts the public key of the server from the certificate. See Fig 4 block S411-S412 and text on [0083 and 0105-0108] teaches performing authentication processing using certificate after downloading the software component);
and install an instance of the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack in an application host, which executes the instance of the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack to (Matsushima on [0075 and 0081] teaches performing authentication using the authentication information and executing (i.e., installing the software component) the downloaded software component. See on [0011] teaches a desired software component selected from a list of software components accumulated in a server displayed on a display section. Further, the selected software component and authentication information is acquired from the server. The acquired software component processed based on the acquired authentication information. Therefore, the software component can be executed or not executed based on the result of authentication. See on [0128] teaches restrict the operation of the software component acquired from a server whose authentication has failed).
Although Matsushima teaches downloading digital certificate containing public key and installing the software component based on authentication information, but fails to explicitly teach using the public key to authenticate the software component and the instance of the authenticated component of the application agent software stack to create a backup copy of data generated by an application that executes on the application host, however Kropf from analogous art teaches
use a public key from the downloaded digital certificate to authenticate the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack (Kropf on [col 38 line 24-30] teaches the newly received updated firmware/software component may include a digital certificate with a public key capable of authenticating the signature of the firmware/software component. Such a digital certificate included with the newly received updated firmware/software component may be validated using the public key integrated into the current firmware/software component or stored in a previously received digital certificate);
(Kropf on [col 26 line 61-67 and col 27 line 1-8] teaches periodically taking snapshots of the virtual machine which involve the capture in one or more data stores of data, instructions, files, data, status, and/or properties of the banking machine, such snapshots may serve as backups of the virtual machine in case a newly installed update to the software in the currently on-line virtual machine causes unexpected problems i.e., snapshot as backup caused by newly installed software component. See also on [ col 37 line 46-67] teaches processor 1404 may also be operative to store the updated firmware/software 1434 component and updated configuration data 1436 in a backup location 1416 (e.g., a back partition, and or backup files) of the client device. When there are problems with subsequent upgrades of the firmware/software component stored in the bootable firmware/software location 1408, activating the input device 1428 of the client device may be operative to cause the processor 1404 to replace the current bootable firmware/software component stored in the bootable firmware/software location 1408 (which may include corrupted or subsequently updated firmware/software components) with the backup firmware/software component 1444 (i.e., the first updated firmware/software component 1434). Similarly, the processor may also replace the current configuration data with the backup configuration data 1446 (i.e., the first updated configuration data 1436)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the teaching of Kropf into the teaching of Matsushima by authenticating the software component using public key included in the certificate and installing the software component to create backup copy of data generated by the software component. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable to validate authenticity of the software component using the digital certificate and replace the corrupted firmware/software component with the authenticated software component (Kropf on [col 1 line 50-65 and col 38 line 1-30]).
The combination fails to explicitly teach each component being deployed by the backup and restore application to protect data from instances of a corresponding application running on an application host, however STEPHEN from analogous art teaches
the selected type of the component being deployed by the backup and restore application to protect the selected type of the data object (STEPHEN on [0012-0014] teaches during operation the backup and restore application 135 may enable the software component to protect data in computer system).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the teaching of STEPHEN into the combined teaching of Matsushima and Kropf by enabling the software component to protect the data. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable to data protection using software component deployed by backup and restore application (STEPHEN on [0002-0004]).
Regarding claim 5 and 12 the combination of Matsushima, Kropf and STEPHEN teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 respectively, Matsushima further teaches wherein the plurality of instructions further causes the processor to register the instance of the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack with the backup and restore application (Matsushima on [0136] teaches registering the software component with the server).
Regarding claim 6 and 13 the combination of Matsushima, Kropf and STEPHEN teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 respectively, Matsushima further teaches wherein the instance of the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack is registered with the backup and restore application without manually logging in to the application host (Matsushima on [0136] teaches registering the software component with the server i.e., without login).
Regarding claim 7, 14 and 20 the combination of Matsushima, Kropf and STEPHEN teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 14 respectively, Matsushima further teaches wherein the instance of the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack is installed in the application host either on demand or according to a schedule (Matsushima Fig 2 and associated text on [0036, 0125 and 0127] teaches displaying list of available software components available on a server 20 (i.e., backup and restore application in view of [0020] of instant application) and user selecting a desired software component to be downloaded to multifunctional machine 10 i.e., user selecting the software component to be downloaded is as installing the software component on demand).
Regarding claim 19 the combination of Matsushima, Kropf and STEPHEN teaches all the limitations of claim 14 above, Matsushima further teaches wherein the program code includes further instructions to register the instance of the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack with the backup and restore application, and the instance of the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack is registered with the backup and restore application without manually logging in to the application host (Matsushima on [0136] teaches registering the software component with the server i.e., without login).
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima (US 20020144257) in view of Kropf et al (hereinafter Kropf) (US 8490868), in view of (JP 2011524569) (hereinafter STEPHEN) and further in view of Barr et al (hereinafter Barr) (US 20060161915).
Regarding claim 2, 9 and 16 the combination of Matsushima, Kropf and STEPHEN teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 15 respectively, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack is bundled with at least one other component of the application agent software stack, and the selection of the component of the application agent software stack excludes selection of the at least one other component of the application agent software stack, however Barr from analogous art teaches
wherein the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack is bundled with at least one other component of the application agent software stack, and the selection of the component of the application agent software stack excludes selection of the at least one other component of the application agent software stack (Barr on [0033 and 0038] teaches selected software product bundled with installation bundler i.e., installation bundler is not what user select rather it’s an additional component that supports installation of desired program).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the teaching of Barr into the combined teaching of Matsushima, Kropf and STEPHEN by bundling the program installer with the selected software component. One would be motivated to do so in order to enable to provide installation of the software component on machine based on the program installer bundled with the software component (Barr on [0003-0008]).
Regarding claim 4, 11 and 18 the combination of Matsushima, Kropf and STEPHEN teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 15 respectively, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein installing the instance of the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack in an application host comprises putting the application host into a maintenance mode which prevents the application host from beginning execution of any operations, until installing the instance of the downloaded and authenticated component of the application agent software stack is done, however Barr from analogous art teaches
wherein installing the instance of the authenticated component of the application agent software stack in an application host comprises putting the application host into a maintenance mode which prevents the application host from beginning execution of any operations, until installing the instance of the selected type of the component of the application agent software stack is done (Barr on [0023] teaches installing software program in maintenance mode).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the teaching of Barr into the combined teaching of Matsushima, Kropf and STEPHEN by installing the software component in maintenance mode. One would be motivated to do so in order to add new features without requiring a source on the network or in-hand when the installed software product is updated, administrators can distribute smaller client patches and users can apply them even when they do not have access to the original source (Barr on [0023]).
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima (US 20020144257) in view of Kropf et al (hereinafter Kropf) (US 8490868) in view of (JP 2011524569) (hereinafter STEPHEN) and further in view of Makofka (US 20060212699).
Regarding claim 3, 10 and 17 the combination of Matsushima, Kropf and STEPHEN teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 15 respectively, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein downloading the digital certificate from the vendor of the backup and restore application has priority over downloading the digital certificate from the backup and restore application, however Makofka from analogous art teaches
wherein downloading the digital certificate from the vendor of the backup and restore application has priority over downloading the digital certificate from the backup and restore application (Makofka on [0003 and 0027-0028] teaches receiving from the vendor the certificate generated by the certificate authority from the vendor i.e., vendor has priority over certificate authority which generated the certificate and sends the certificate to the vendor and which then sends the certificate for software component to downloading device).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the teaching of Makofka into the combined teaching of Matsushima, Kropf and STEPHEN by receiving the certificate for the software component from the vendor. One would be motivated to do so in order to ensure security and trustworthiness of the software component based on the certificate received form the vendor (Makofka on [0004-0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3522. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-5PM EST M-TH Alternate Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on (571)272-4219. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOEEN KHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights